Post-Gazette Editorial – 12/8/06

This page was last updated on December 11, 2006.

A way out / Bush would be mistaken to reject the Iraq report; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 8, 2006.

Read the editorial and it’s clear the PG hopes we don’t read the Iraq Surrender Group (ISG) report. Otherwise, the editorial would not have been written the way it was.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Presenting the best chance for changing the White House’s ill-fated war policy, the Iraq Study Group delivered its long-awaited report to President Bush this week, the results of eight months of work. The question is whether the president will continue to turn a tin ear toward sage advice.

…

“As significant as the report’s unflinching conclusions was the makeup of the study group itself. It was a blue-ribbon bipartisan effort, not the usual politicized fun and games that often come from Washington. The 10-member group included respected Americans who have retired from distinguished careers in public service -- for example, two Republican secretaries of state, a Democratic secretary of defense, a president’s chief of staff, an attorney general and a Supreme Court justice.”

[RWC] At least the PG didn’t make the “blue-ribbon bipartisan effort” the sole subject of the editorial, as did the Beaver County Times.

“The contents of their 96-page report were striking. It said that the United States’ policy in Iraq was not working and that a drastic change of course was necessary after nearly 3,000 U.S. dead, 22,000 wounded and $350 billion spent on a war that has dragged on for three years and nine months, longer than the nation’s involvement in World War II.”

[RWC] How is the length of one war relevant to the length of another? Why not compare to The Revolutionary War (8 years) or The Civil War (four years)?

Why not compare body counts? For example, 50,000 U.S. servicemen died during the Korean War, around 200,000 were killed in action during The Civil War (over 45,000 at Gettysburg alone), over 400,000 died during World War II, and over 110,000 died during World War I.

“The document contained 79 recommendations, including approaches the Bush administration had previously spurned. One of them was that political negotiations to bring the war to an end must involve all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran, which are not friendly with the United States, as well as the more amicable Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait.”

[RWC] While the editorial was quick to point out the ISG report included “approaches the Bush administration had previously spurned,” the editorial failed to point out the report also included approaches the Bush administration was already pursuing. Here’s the reason. Any activity that was already taking place and was also recommended by the ISG will be credited to the ISG.

Would this be the same “amicable” Saudi Arabia that encouraged us to move our military bases out, and the “amicable” Turkey that refused to allow the 4^th Infantry Division to enter Iraq from its soil? The absence of the 4^th ID coming from the north helped the enemy run away and blend into the population.

“The report correctly placed resolution of the Iraq war in the context of a larger Middle East whose primary issue is the Arab-Israeli conflict. The group called for a renewed effort by the Bush administration toward the peace process, particularly through a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.”

[RWC] The Iraq War and “the Arab-Israeli conflict” are not linked. In the real world, trying to lump the Israel situation on the Iraq situation is referred to as scope creep. As a reminder, Iran is a primary agitator in Iraq and it is not an Arab country.

Regarding “a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine,” the PG hopes we don’t remember the Bush administration was the first to speak out in favor of that approach.

Regarding “a renewed effort,” that only works when both sides are committed. The Palestinians can’t be successfully negotiated with because what they want is the total elimination of Israel. When the only thing your enemy will settle for is your extermination or removal, what is there to negotiate?

“It suggested a major change in the use of U.S. forces in Iraq, from a combat role to one of training Iraqi forces to take the place of American troops in maintaining order. Left unanswered was the question of whether Iraqi troops are indeed capable of being trained and performing such duty. The report failed to issue a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, but it did recommend that American combat brigades begin a gradual pull-out next year, to be concluded by early 2008. That would still leave up to 80,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.”

[RWC] “[M]ajor change?” U.S. (and other coalition) forces in Iraq have been “training Iraqi forces to take the place of American troops in maintaining order” since shortly after the fall of Iraq.

“[I]t did recommend that American combat brigades begin a gradual pull-out next year, to be concluded by early 2008?” I’m sorry, guys, but this is a lie in my opinion.

Here’s exactly what the ISG report says: “By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.”

It’s clear the ISG report doesn’t recommend all combat troops leave Iraq “by early 2008.” This is an example of what I meant earlier when I wrote the PG hopes we never read the ISG report. If we read the report, it’s tougher for PG editorials to lie about the report’s contents.

The only combat troops the ISG report hoped could begin leaving are those “necessary for force protection.” The force protection combat brigades are there to protect U.S. military personnel, facilities, and equipment. As long as U.S. military installations are under threat of attack, or until the Iraqis can take over force protection for U.S. military installations, U.S. force protection combat personnel can’t leave.

“The study group proposed that a higher standard of accountability be applied to the Iraqis themselves, with the United States no longer making an open-ended commitment to its presence.

“The next step, obviously, is for the White House to apply the recommendations. But President Bush, who met yesterday with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, remained obstinate on the idea of pulling out U.S. soldiers. Still clinging to hope for a military victory, Mr. Bush said, ‘If we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.’ Mr. Bush said he will deliver a policy speech later, after looking at in-house studies by the military and his own National Security Council on how to proceed in Iraq.”

[RWC] Hmm, the ISG report itself said, “If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.” I guess that means the ISG is obstinate as well. This is another example of why the PG clearly hopes we don’t read the report.

“That is natural. He does not want to appear to be stampeded into adopting even this sound and cogent report. Yet the president should not harbor any reservations due to the ISG co-chairman, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, and earlier ISG member and new Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, having served in his father’s administration. Mr. Bush should understand that, given the gravity of the Iraq situation, which is spelled out clearly in the report, Americans are in no mood to see Bush family pathology become a justification for his not taking rapid action on these recommendations.”

[RWC] “Bush family pathology?” Where do people get this stuff?

First we were told President Bush #43 invaded Iraq to get even with Saddam Hussein plotting to assassinate President Bush #41. Now we’re told “Bush family pathology” may lead President Bush not to take “rapid action on these recommendations.” What is it with the constant effort to smear President Bush with unfounded innuendo? What about the Block family pathology that persists in publishing truth-challenged editorials like this one?

Finally, for some reason, the PG apparently doesn’t want us to know not all of the recommendations were directed at the Bush administration. Some were directed at Congress and others at the Iraqi government.

…

“It is well past time for a major U.S. policy shift to bring the Iraq war to a prompt end. American troops have given their all, and members of their families have suffered enough. The report of the Iraq Study Group provides a useful guide to help do that.”

[RWC] To “bring the Iraq war to a prompt end?” Are we to believe that hasn’t been to goal all along? At the same time, though, bringing “the Iraq war to a prompt end” without accomplishing our mission simply means we’ll be back sometime in the future against an emboldened and stronger enemy. Quoting the ISG report, “We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake.”

Finally, nowhere in this editorial do you read about a desire for our effort in Iraq to be a success. That’s one reason I get a kick out of the PG accusing anyone of a pathological problem.